Skip to content

Christian Ethics = Epic Fail

May 7, 2009

In the following, I have shifted a dialog which started in a YouTube comments log, because I made a reply which got too long and transfered to a text editor to paste it back later in parts. However, as I began contemplating the issue of moral values in secular atheism vs Christianity, I got more interested and it turned into something of an essay. In case you are curious, I will also post the video, which is from: The Atheist Experience series:

The dialog I have filtered out here is between myself (Skepticoz is my youtube screen name) and the user named GooHuman. I am doing this in chronological order, so what follows now is the dialog leading up to my little essay, which was too big for YouTube comments..

This is a red herring. Anything I do good or bad, has nothing to do with the nonexistence of God. Christians can pretend to do good because of the existence of a deity which they pretend exists, but neither Atheism nor Christianity in and of themselves do any good, it is people who do good. The real question is how sincere are their motives? Without a God watching, any good I might do, is off my own back and subject only to the praise of my peers.

You are on to something but then you go flying off the road again. Jesus stated clear as a bell that God values grace, compassion, kindness, and of course loyalty (among other things). Those values lead to good actions. We recognize the good in them wether or not we accept their source.
What values can be attributed to the non-existence of God? Whatever works, I guess. No one is holding your feet to the fire should you choose to abuse your fellow man. Plenty get away with it.

“Jesus stated clear as a bell that God values grace, compassion, kindness,..” Who would have thunk it? What with all the savage barbarity ordained by god in this life and the threat of eternal damnation in the next. your god appears to be a monomaniacal, misogynistic, homophobic, sadomasochistic barbarian asshole.
If you are doing good things because Jesus says these values A B and C meet gods approval, then you are only being a sheep. You can think for yourself and know they are good.
“No one is holding your feet to the fire should you choose to abuse your fellow man.”
There is nobody holding my tongue to an ice cream should I choose to do the complete opposite either. I am not governed by a celestial dictatorship. Although I do have peers and I do have a conscience and I do have the inbuilt faculty of empathy. I do not however have a magical sky pixie to FORGIVE me for my sins. I will feel guilty about them until I have put them right, or until I die.

You are making my point loud and clear.
And I ask you, why will you feel guilty for sins? If you don’t believe in God, then what difference does it make should you go against him before you die? The people? So they hate your memory and then they die too. So what? Why feel guilty about anything?

I am not making you point. You are making mine.
I told you why I would feel guilty about my wrong doings, because I have empathy and compassion DESPITE my godless heart. You are deliberately ignoring this point and it is quite insulting to hear your cynical religious bigotry in assuming I should be out murdering raping and stealing. The fact is I am not and that is a discrepancy you are left to explain. You just keep arrogantly insisting that the only source of morality is God. Xtian biggotry.
It makes no difference whether I go against your imaginary friend, as I can’t go against something which doesn’t exist. It does matter however, if I go against society and my conscience. Kinda dishonest of you to try pretending that social protocols don’t matter since we will all be dead. It matters VERY much to me how I will be remembered as this is the only kind of immortality I believe I have, my legacy in memory. Anyhow, I need to live with others while I am still alive, so EMPATHTY MATTERS.
It’s just downright foolish that Christians keep baning on that drum that we could not have morals without God, because it implies that if they had no God, a celestial dictator looking down and judging their every action, then they would be out looting raping and killing for fun. You may concede that you would be an evil asshole without your imaginary friend but don’t tar me with that brush thanks. Are you too stupid to see what an insult this argument is?

Alright. So you claim to be moral. Your insulting tone speaks otherwise, but lets assume you are. If I understand you, your basis for morality is society and your conscience. So if you lived in Somalia, society dictates a completely different norm.
Do you believe that others consciences are different? Non-existent maybe? What then would be their morals? Killing children with guns is unsportsmanlike conduct?
All I’m saying is, if morality is not common between us, it’s meaningless. Can you find the truth in that statement?

“Alright. So you claim to be moral.” Oh! That surprises you does it? Well I make no special claims except that I am at least as moral as Christians and that I have to think about what is right and wrong rather than just obeying like a well trained dog. Right or wrong, I face the consequences of my deeds as I don’t have a psychological fire-escape ‘being forgiven’ in the back of my head. If anything I must be more careful because I can’t rubout my mistakes. They are written in permanent ink.
“Your insulting tone speaks otherwise” MY INSULTING TONE??? Hello Pot!!? This is Kettle speaking!! You’ve got some balls you have pal. With your blisteringly arrogant assumption that nobody who isn’t told what to think by a celestial dictator could have any moral fiber. Still, you’re to stupid to realize how insulting and rude you are to go around looking down your nose at the moral values of others, while you yourself have none you weren’t actually given by a fantastic myth. HYPOCRITE!!!
“So if you lived in Somalia, society dictates a completely different norm.” Society dictates a different norm in Somalia because Somalia is almost 100% Muslim and that means that it is populated by people such as yourself, who allow morals to be dictated to them like trained dogs. Relative morality doesn’t work in a moral dictatorship. Despite the fact that they also live under a moral dictatorship, this is no guarantee that their morals will agree with yours, nor even that of other Muslims.
What it does guarantee is division and disharmony, savage, brutal, barbaric cruelty. Bloodshed, murder rape and war. A Feudal society in constant disarray, unless the dictatorship can win and maintain 100% control. Even then the barbaric cruelty use to keep the status quo is inhumane by any reasonable modern standards. The Muslim world is living in a brutal, barbaric time long past. It’s just silly to point to Muslim country as an example of Social moral norms. Somalia is a moral wasteland.

“All I’m saying is, if morality is not common between us, it’s meaningless. Can you find the truth in that statement?” Morality is not meaningless without perfect agreement at all. A concept that was never instigated in the ancient world was democracy. We don’t need a divine ruler to explain why it’s fair to ‘average out’ a choice. You know very well, that you live in a society which makes moral decisions without divine decree. And look!! It works far better than theocracy.

We are talking about morality. Democracy and judicial systems exist outside your head. We humans have learned to compromise to live under one system. We are not talking about that.
Please recall, we are trying to determine what the basis for our morality is. I say God made us that way, you say society and conscience.
Pardon my tone if I sound insulting.

Come on man don’t be a dickhead. The judicial system and democracy, do not consist of stone buildings and wooden benches. They are thinking systems that comprise methods for unifying social thought. How democracy works, what is fair, how to decide what is fair. You know we do it you know it gets done and you know that we don’t use God.
OK? You claimed that if morality was not common between us, it would be meaningless. I disagreed. Courts and parliaments aren’t morals, neither are churches.
You refuse to try imagining that your morals come from anything other than God. You probably know very well that you wouldn’t just go off murdering, raping and looting if you didn’t believe you have God’s ordained morals. You aught to know just as well as I do why (the real reasons) we don’t do this kind of thing. Obsequious fawning obedience to curry favor with an imaginary friend is not morals. Humans – EMPATHY & compromise to live under one system, sounds like a much more noble cause to me.
Just to recap: Your moral code as far as I am concerned comes from an outside source: Man made dictates of biblical scribes often as interpreted (ad-libbed) by church elders. My code comes from internal ethical reasoning. I must evaluate with my own mind. Both systems need to be externalized in order to be incorporated into a larger social system they both need protocols for negotiating agreement. Secular ethics uses rational debate, religion uses bloodshed, terrorism, blackmail & proselytism.

Wow skepticoz, you are one angry athiest.
I was pretty sure we were talking about the morality that each of us has regardless of any outside source. I don’t know how you got on this banter about our judicial system. I guess it was just an excuse to throw out more insults at all things religious.
I tell you what skpticoz. Wether you understand morality or logic or anything ultimately means little to me. You believe whatever you want. But do yourself a favor. Listen.

GooHuman, A note on who’s listening (taking notice):
I see you lost the trail of comprehension about where courts and parliaments enter our discussion of society sharing a moral code, even though you were the one who claimed “if morality is not common between us, it’s meaningless.” Do you remember saying that?

What is common between us, is is usually shared by a common medium, dialogs, protocols etc. My moral values are no different to yours in that respect. For a common medium you have your Bible and perhaps church fellowship, I share my moral values with others in the community also, even with Christians such as yourself. We also, both participate in a democracy which allows us to excersice our (obstesiably concience based moral) choices in the wider community to regulate the agreement and harmony of society. Our elected elders use public opinion (again obstensiably concince based moral opinion) to drive policy formulation and legislation.

By asking where the commonality of my system of morality resides, you are effectively demanding that I manifest the media, mechanisms, and protocols that permit my morality to be shared, to show that it is not “meaningless” as you put it. So I do this and you complain, what was it? Oh yes “Democracy and judicial systems exist outside your head.” But so do churches. holly books, and gods. These are only the mediums we use to regulate the common protocol in sharing our moral mandates. I have already clarified this but you seem to be playing dumb. It’s working.

Now lets just compare two of your petulant demanding statements that seem to limit the range of responses you deem acceptable. On one hand you say “if morality is not common between us, it’s meaningless.” On the other hand you also complain “Democracy and judicial systems exist outside your head.” Do you see how these demands contradict each other? Of corse you do. You are bending over backwards to corner me in a no win situation and hand waive away any response I might give no matter how valid.

Anything that is “common between us” is by definition not an individual mental construct such as a moral (we are not Borg) and must by deffinition be external. Anything I give on the other hand that serves as a moral foundation for ‘group think’, is by deffinition external and could not therefore be in and of itself a moral, so you discount it on those grounds. Aparently on your watch, a moral system, including whatever permits it to share comonality of moral agreement, must consist of nothing other than morals and must reside inside the head of the individual at all times.

The idea that morals can be conveyed as information and shared in groups or that moral decisions can be made by groups having a process to do so, such as group discussion and democratic rule, is not a fact that you wish to acknowledge because it contravienes your pre-ordained deffinition that shared information is not morals, and therefore do not contribute to morality. That unfortunately contradicts your petulant demand for a morality that is “common between us”. Anything “common” must by deffinition be external and therefore not a moral.

The reason I pointed to democracy, parliment and the judicial system, is because these are mechanisms and institutions that enable group morality to be instigated. Along with that communications mass media and anything that alows us to excange information within our societies, can be useful to modify our opinions and form a moral outlook.
Morals are only internal while they remain silent thoughts in our heads. But most morals have some relevance to other people, so when it comes time to use them, they are applied to situations and choices that exist externally. So ‘applied morality’ is not just stagnant morals locked up in our heads. You asked how atheist morality can be common between us and I answered, by sharing our moral perspectives, and influencing society democratically. It may be a moral when I am thinking about it, but It is still a moral when I am discussing it with other people and It is especially a moral when I am acting upon it.

Many forms of communications allow us to discuss our moral values with others and participating in democratic procedures, allows us to actually take our moral decisions and share them as a social group. So as an atheist I may still construct my morals internally, including advice/information assimilated from peers and the wider community; I may reach informed choices about my personal moral code, but it doesn’t stop there, because others may be interested in my perspective and I may have choices to make, that externalize my internally induced morals.

It is you LEAST OF ALL, who gets your moral mandate internally. Why do you demand an internally constructed morality? As I have explained. “…I do have a conscience and I do have the inbuilt faculty of empathy.” I do not have a imaginary friend whispering in my ear how to be good. I must contemplate my moral reasoning, consider how others would feel about my actions and choices (assuming I wish to do the right thing) and that process makes my morals as internally constructed as it gets.

Compare that with yourself: Your prayers are not directed at yourself, your Bible does not reside inside your head, and your church community are people in your neighborhood you may go and meet. None of these components of Christian life are internal sources. The god you believe exists is also out, because the morals you claim he delivers are external they come from outside of you. They existed (by all Christian accounts) before you and I were born. Unless you were on the mountain with Mosses and God whispering in God’s ear what you think he should put on the stone tablets, then you are not the fabricator of your own moral guidance system and it is not internally constructed. I hope I am making this point clear now.

The idea of theocratic, moral dictatorship, is anathema to freethinking, humanistic, moral determination from within. You either get your morals from moral reasoning or you don’t. To the extent you deffer to a holly book and an aledged deity, you are not building your own moral values internally. So why do you demand the same from me?
If any truly common moral resides within each of us, then it suggests one of two things. Either that moral has been taken in or put there from an external source, OR we have a method of deriving morals internally, that like a calculator, can be used to derive a predictable result. Moral reasoning is not as objective as mathematics, but many problems are obvious enough that you can derive the same answer as anybody will give without hesitation or duress.

Agreement or commonality of our morals is no big deal, because we have so many of the same motives, fears desires and instincts. Because we are a social creature and live to fulfill common goals many of which can be attained by symbiotic cooperation. Our moral reasoning is automatically based on the same logical precepts.

‘Do unto others’ is not a principal of Christian morality, it is a principal of universal morality which everybody instinctively appreciates. Its history in literature and theology predated Christian mythology. There was the eastern idea of Karma that ‘what goes around comes around’ and even the Wiccans have their ‘Harm yea none’.

The idea of preemptive charity and goodwill is something that does not require any God to exist, for it to be stated, invoked, or practiced. Whether you like it or not, morality is universal not a Christian concept. It is unified by common sense and common goals as a society. It is based on our capacity to appreciate and experience empathy.

We all know better than to steal for instance. If somebody owns something, it is not within our rights to take it from them, but that’s not the important thing. ‘We are not allowed to steal’ is one reason not to do it, but a better one would be that we understand the consequences that it will have, not just on us, but on the victim of our crime. They will probably suffer from the loss of the stolen item and they will miss it. They will not have it to use or enjoy and they will be deprived, inconvenienced and possibly upset about their loss. It is not hard to imagine how we would feel if we were in their shoes.

We don’t need the golden rule to state the obvious either. We don’t need stone tablets or papyrus scrolls. Many many and much much more complex ethical dilemmas have been solved throughout history without the need for any divine moral inspiration. In any case the moral dictates of the three Abrahamic monotheisms, are no real moral guidance, they don’t even mandate general solutions beyond the simple scenarios they address. They only provide point lists like the ten commandments, to dictate outcomes. There are no general rules in them, of moral reasoning as there is in the study of Ethics.

The commands are negative ‘Thou must not’ and the motives punitive. They do not teach ethical thinking, they only make commandments. Where they do demonstrate moral lessons, such as in the various parables, they are none that could not be understood without a divine creator claiming to be the author’s inspiration. Christopher Hitchens has a standing challenge: “Name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever.” I would add, without appealing to belief, worship or self approbating unilateralism of faith as the sneaks try to do, by granting themselves the assumption that not only is worship good, but their kind of worship in their particular religion/faith/denomination is good. That is obviously circular reasoning and appeals to the Naturalistic Fallacy which is committed according to the Principia Ethica “whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term “good” in terms of one or more natural properties (such as “pleasant”, “more evolved”, “desired”, etc.).”

What you seem to be doing GooHuman, is testing the obviously false proposition that there is actually no moral guidance system if a theocratic moral manopoly is not present. It’s not a reasonable starting assumption as I have told you, because obviously, Atheists DO have morals, OK?

We tend to be a bit touchy when it is assumed by dogma heads, that we must be living in a moral vacuum. Instead of asking how atheists could possibly have morals, it would be more becoming (not to mention moral/ethical) to accept that of course we do, and set about investigating morality to see how else it can be acquired. I have already suggested to you, that in the absence of your theocratic moral dictatorship, you too would still know how to derive some moral conclusions. It seems perfectly obvious to me but you haven’t bothered to respond to anything that I might be yearning to know. It’s time to put your cards on the table, and justify some of your own theistic propositions.

You must realize that all atheists are not running around looting, raping and eating babies. We are all regulated by secular man made law of course, so even if I wanted to commit heinous sins I know it would be hard to get away with them. But the point is that these laws ARE secular and much more detailed than the theocratic biblical rules they have superseded. Their fairness and effectiveness is a reflection of what people want collectively. Safe streets, equal opportunity, undigested babies etc. These man made rules are decided without consulting any sky pixie. In any case atheists do seem to typically have the same collective desires.

How might YOU explain the existence of atheist morals, if you must insist that they can not be derived from any other source than your supernatural creator god?

You have not put your cards on the table GooHuman. I don’t know if you are in fact, positively making this assertion (that atheists could not have morals), only that you insinuate that it is my problem. If it is to be admitted that athiests do have morals, then it can be assumed that they are derived otherwise, than from your alleged deity. If you are bold enough to claim that morals can only be sourced from your god, then the onus is upon YOU to explain how the athiest finds them. You see part of the insult is that you ask me the question. That in itself accuses me (and by extension all atheists) of having no morals, and shirks your own responsibility for explaining the morals that I do obviously have. Do you understand why I say it is your responsibility? If you wish to claim that morals can only come from god, then atheists should have no morals.

Like wise with anybody who’s god is false (and therefore non existent). If the Christian God is the only one true God and the only source of morality, then nobody other than Christians should be able to distinguish right from wrong. Besides being horrendously presumptuous and arrogant, that is just so obviously not true. You need to demonstrate some of those fine upstanding Christian morals of yours GooHuman by admitting the weakest flaws in your theological propositions and giving charitable concession to the opposing.

I am very proud of my moral compass. I think rightfully so, since I have to work hard at earning it. I have battle scars and embarrassing memories aplenty to remind me what the price was to possess such a device. Now I polish it, keep it safe and guard it well. I don’t expect a deist to understand, because they have a martyr who they believe paid the price for all of their sins and blah…blah… blah… You know the story. I shoulder my own burdens but I am not trying to wear my heart on my sleeve. I only note that all my moral faculties, are hard earned and deserved.

Christians need to be mindfull of the offense they might cause when they:

  • A) Carelessly complain about insults (playing the victim card as usual)
  • B) Implicate others in a lack of moral / logic comprhention or..
  • C) Scorn their critics to listen, keep up or pay attention.

On the last point C) It is because Christianity has been asleep at the wheel for hundreds of years that they don’t notice or comprehend what is going on. It is ironic to the point of outright being funny (honestly- the absurdity made me chuckle, and actually diffused some of my annoyance), that you claim I am not listening, even as you admit you have lost the plot about how the “banter about our judicial system”, first arose.

On point B) Well If you have your moral code handed to you on a platter and don’t have to comprehend morals / logic, then I wouldn’t expect you to appreciate what it means to have any comprehension in this department.

With point A) You may not know how offensive it is to just present Christian ideologies burdened as they are with gilt and shame for simply existing, when the person you are speaking to has earned the right to forgive themselves without a magic panacea. I believe it is psychologically healthy to remain guilty, until I have done something to fix my mistakes and make up for my wrong doings. That would fit well with any standard, universal, moral reasoning or ethics.

The idea that somebody else can suffer for my sins, or I can be punished for an ancestors wrong doing, are simple examples of moral inequity. When people take them to heart, it erodes otherwise sensible moral values. Christianity as I see it is a net burden on the moral landscape because it teaches this displaced retribution through the doctrine of atonement. It is often pointed out that the core doctrine of Christianity is the Death of Jesus for (all of) our sins. In which case I have to profess that Christianity is simply rotten to the core.

When more than 50% of the population can be convinced to shirk their burden of guilt for sin, rather than making up for their sin / accepting personal retribution and rather than think of why we should or shouldn’t do certain things, accept instead a cut and dried list of do’s and dont’s, we all suffer. When they are prevented from thinking about moral reasoning and told they are forgiven, I and millions of other atheists are effected. Many of these people are voters in the democracies we share, some of them will potentially be among those who have sinned against me. ‘Jesus think’ will not help them to understand what they have done wrong, why it is wrong and motivate them to compensate for their wrong doing.

On the other hand people need to accept that they can recount their wrong doings, in the manner of alcoholics in the twelve step program, who make a list of everybody they have slighted and set about trying to hold themselves accountable and compensate their sins. We need to be able to make a just compensation and receive honestly earned forgiveness, so that we can move on and let go of the guilt. Our conscience should not be free until we have paid real penance to the right people. But when we have, we deserve a clear conscience, and we need that goal to be attainable, for a conscience based morality to work.

Having somebody else pay for our sins and being thus forgiven, simply makes a rod for our own backs and displaces the function of our conscience. Asking God to forgive you (and accepting that forgiveness) when the sin you commit is against another mortal, is obviously flawed. It is your victim who deserves the apology, they may also deserve much more than that, to make up for your wrong doing, but in Christian ethics, you just say sorry and to the wrong guy and you are magically forgiven. Well you may think that God forgives you but I don’t.

Here’s a scoop for you. Atheists don’t believe your god exists, any more than they believe in Allah or Wotan or Vishnu or the tooth fairy OK? From where I stand, when you confess your sins to your imaginary friend, and imagine he is telling you “everything is fine, just don’t do it again”, It is precisely the same as letting yourself off the hook Scott free. Anybody with the vaguest sense of fairness should see what is wrong with this picture. If you are walking around thinking you have nothing to be ashamed of and your karma is balanced, then you are wrong. You need to make up for wrong doings and fix your mistakes.

‘But! wait’… I suppose you might retort, ‘I don’t just seek forgiveness from God, I also set about balancing the score, you know… setting things right.’ Well good. I’m glad to hear it, but those are not actions motivated by the principal of vicarious retribution as espoused by the Bible. In as much as you choose to do this, you are acting independently of the bible and doing as any person with a conscience would do. As I have said about the golden rule, the Bible may mention and Christians may do, many things which are not exclusively (or even especially) uniquely Christian values or actions. I am not concerned with your random acts of kindness, except to note how befitting they would be of a fine upstanding atheist.

The ethical values that are taught my the main tenant of the Biblical retribution actually appeal to a very selfish motive. Rid yourself of guilt and get yourself off the hook. I do find it annoying also that Christians often wave this particular thing in the face of the non-believer, “Jesus died for your sins you know” almost clucking their tongues and waging a stern finger in scorn for good measure. Well no he didn’t actually, not even from your view point. As I am an atheist, I will be burning in hell for my sins. That’s by your account. That is how it works isn’t it? The worst of my sins Indeed the only unforgivable sin, is the sin of withholding belief.

Your petty, vindictive, egocentric, monomaniacal, Barbaric God is such an insecure and self aggrandizing being, that he would damn me to suffer in hell for eternity because I didn’t acknowledge his existence (against all empirical evidence), where as a mass murdering, child molesting, criminal, who pimped his mother, wife and daughter to pay gambling debts, could theoretically offer a deathbed confession and ask for God’s forgiveness to be allowed into heaven.

From my point of view, the alleged character called Jesus died to provide an infinite excuse for the wrong doings of Christians and let them off the psychological hook, for everything the ever did wrong and ever will, but not for the non-Christian. I am supposed to be grateful for this supreme act of martyrdom, and sacrifice, because it was so selfless, but from where I stand it’s nothing other than emotional bribery, with a ‘get out of guilt free card’ and the promise of never having to think for yourself about how to be fair or moral. Furthermore if God does not exist the Bible is wrong and Jesus/crucifixion/atonement are factually wrong so is branding people guilty of sin from birth and then selling them the cure.

It is selfish to want this undeserved emptying of the conscience and it is also ungrateful to nature and to your natural faculties of moral reasoning, as well as very irresponsible to the rest of society for whom your moral accountancy is required to accord with personal retribution. In the real world you are the one held accountable to your sins and that is precisely how it should be too.

The bribery and blackmail of heaven and hell are just Soooooooooo, obvious it isn’t funny, appealing to fear and greed (I don’t want to die in hell / I want eternal life in paradise), for anybody with enough rational accumen to avoid deriving an is from an aught. The agenda to convert em before they learn any higher reasoning skills (and as a consequence probably never will learn any), is but another facet that makes the whole ploy look as disingenuous as any evil con merchant plot based on greed and power. The ploy to brand us all as sinners in order to sell the magical cure for sin, again, is a cheap transparent facade that is nothing short of an insult to intelligence and a cruel cynical ploy to enslave the emotions with blackmail. A filthy disgusting shame game.

The trick is that no sooner do you buy into this vulgar insult of being tarnished with sin, than you are forgiven of those sins. Accepting we are sinners from birth at the time of conversion into Christianity is painless for the convert because they are already from that moment forgiven. All that they have done, is saddled everybody they left behind them with unrepented / unforgiven sins and copped out of their own sin with a plea bargain from God.

Because Christians choose to buy into this fantasy, along with it’s ‘morals come only from god’ theocratic bargain, they automatically get to consider themselves as morally superior whether they admit it or not. THIS! Despite the fact that they are typically as guilty as anybody still, of their past digressions, and haven’t done anything to make amens except pretend that their belief in a savior can make it all better. Upon conversion they commence the belief that everybody is a sinner, but non-Christians deserve to be guilt laden (to the point of being destined for Hell) because they have not repented or been forgiven. What a vile load of egocentric, self serving claptrap.

In pasty euphemisms they might be heard to concede “you know Christians aren’t perfect just forgiven” but of course what they are thinking is more like “how could an atheist possibly have morals” The sanctimonious piety and self righteousness, is never far below the surface with Christians. I hope this goes some way to help explain why Atheists get annoyed by so called Christian morality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: